论文部分内容阅读
刑法阈值标准系影响特定行为入罪的技术指标,可分为决定型阈值标准和基准型阈值标准。因纯技术、非评价、无后果的型构,导致制定过程的封闭性、传播宣传的局限性、民众认知的晦涩性、法律后果的弱征表性。以此标定入罪必然在罪刑法定原则的契合性、违法性认识的认知度、刑事判决的公众认同感等方面引发诸多冲突。故立法层面,首先杜绝设置决定型阈值指标,其次提升基准型阈值标准遴选的科学性,再次构建阈值标准立体式宣扬、多维化提示、随动型告知的宣示机制;在司法环节,一方面维护并彰显刑法作为“二次规范”的独立性地位,充分发挥其对行为是否入罪的准据适用与最终评价功能;另一方面,在个案中则应充分激活“但书”的出罪功能以对冲阈值标准机械入刑的负影响。
The criminal law threshold standard is the technical indicator that affects the specific behavior into the crime, which can be divided into the decision threshold standard and the benchmark threshold standard. Due to pure technology, non-evaluation, no consequences of the structure, leading to closure of the development process, the limitations of communication and public awareness of the obscurity of the law, the weakness of legal representation. Therefore, it is inevitable that a lot of conflicts will be caused in the conformity of statutory principles of crime and punishment, cognition of illegality cognition and public recognition of criminal judgments. Therefore, at the legislative level, we should first eliminate the setting of deterministic threshold indicators and secondly, enhance the scientificness of the selection of benchmark-type threshold standards and once again establish a three-dimensional threshold-based advocacy mechanism for propaganda, multidimensionalization and follow-up notification. In the judicial sector, on the one hand, And demonstrate the independent status of the criminal law as a “secondary norms” and give full play to its application of the criteria and the ultimate evaluation function of whether or not a criminal is guilty of an offense. On the other hand, the " The offensive function to hedge threshold standard mechanical imprisonment negative impact.